I realized what bothers me about ace assembly routines and I'm wondering if this has been addressed before.

Perhaps I should just call Ernest and resist the urge to make a public display of my query, ah well what the hell...

In a nutshell...the ace never literally disappears--it transposes with another indifferent card. That doesn't make sense as such. Why wouldn't it invisibly add itself to the lead ace packet? Thereby leaving three indifferent cards behind.

This would seem to make more sense and be easier to accept as real magic to a layperson.

So the question is, has someone come up with a routine that addresses this as an effect?

Because you would end up with four aces and three indifferent cards in one pile and three piles of three indifferenct cards. Doesn't make good theater. In the routines, normally, the ace turns into another card, since the ace must exist some place then logic would dictate that the ace and the other card have changed places. It's just until the end you don't know where the aces would re-appear. As for lay people, don't assume you know what they won't accept. Magicians think of magic very much differently than the lay public does. Steve V

Originally posted by Eric Evans:Why wouldn't it invisibly add itself to the lead ace packet? Thereby leaving three indifferent cards behind.

Your concerns are easily addressed by asking yourself a simple question: "What EFFECT do I want to get across?"

In routines like "MacDonald Aces", the effect is, essentially, TRANSPOSITION. The aces TRANSPOSE with indifferent cards in the leader packet.

If that's what you're after, then starting off with a leader packet of three indifferent cards and an ace makes sense. But the question remains. WHY are you transposing the aces?

Sometimes, your presentation justifies the transposition. For example, in the context of a gambling routine, there's no reason to question why a poker dealer would want to switch his indifferent cards with the aces in his opponent's hands. Wesley James' "L.S.D. Aces", and Simon Aronson's "O'Aronson's Aces" are prime examples of this approach.

On the other hand, if you want the effect to be a VANISH AND REPRODUCTION of the aces (a somewhat related, yet thematically different effect), the most logical thing is to do away with the indifferent cards in the leader packet. Moreover, after each ace vanishes, only three cards should be seen in each respective packet. David Copperfield's routine is a good example of this. In his version, no other cards are in the leader position other than the leader ace. This makes sense. It's unnecessary for any other cards to be there in the beginning, since the aces will eventually be reproduced there.

"Collin's Aces" is another case in point. Not only do the aces vanish and leave behind only three cards, but it also gives you the freedom to reproduce those aces anywhere you want. If you vanish all four aces, they can be reproduced say, in your wallet, or spelled to, or under a drink, or anywhere your whim and sense of mischief dictates.

Dustin raised an interesting question. Why even have packets at all? What if you just put four aces face up on the table, wave your hands over them like chink-a-chink, and have the cards assemble that way?

Or how about the best of both worlds - a tabled reverse version of Travelers. You put four signed aces face up on the table. Vanish three of the aces, one by one (or put them into your pockets), and then reproduce them by moving the fourth ace aside to reveal three aces underneath it.

In my lecture notes from 1981 there is an original effect called "Stratosphere Aces" where the aces are laid out MacDonald's style, but appear on the leader ace (which has no cover cards) Open Travelers style.

As each vanishes from its packet (three and an ace) only the three indifferent cards are left.

A symptom of getting old, no doubt, is when you continually hear yourself muttering to yourself, "How quickly they forget..."Actually, it's not a matter of forgetting as much as it's a case where the current generation is familar with only the latest references.

The plot or approach where three Aces from the non-leader packet actually disappearing a joining a single leader-Ace was originated by Ed Marlo, who called it "Real Gone Aces."

There are many versions, most by Marlo.I'm posting most of them on my Website this summer is a dubious treatise titled REAL GONE.

Not sure Jason, I've shown my ace assembly around since ... way back when. (79?) It has the aces out, one chosen and a spec put their hand on one pile... which sits on top of the deck. The other aces then started to vanish from each of the three tabled piles. Elmsley count, tent vanish, Rub-a-dub vanish, and one went reversed in the packet. This was the precursor to my trick with the the mirror.

I'm not at all surprised that Geoff also constructed something with card vanishes. He was the one who pointed me to 'The Ramsay Legend' and it makes sense that we both looked at the cards to pocket routine there as a launching pad for cards vanishing in routine.

Likewise Derek Dingle demonstrated a clever handling of MacDonald's aces that gave thinking magicians a good example of how a bit of extra work can make the 'surprising' into the 'visually stunning'.

My excuse--along with being old and forgetful--is my aversion to ace assemblies using packets of cards. If you are going to assemble the aces, use just the aces! Of course, the key word here is "assemble." I do perform what is (technically speaking) an assembly, however, the effect is not one of assembly, but appearance, and a surprise one at that. Of course this is all due, primarily, to presentational considerations on my part. When I choose to assemble aces (from a presentational point of view) I do Larry Jennings' Open Travelers.

Jack Carpenter has a good one in which you lay out the four card packets, and when an ace vanishes there are only three cards in the packet. It's a reverse assembly, so the aces end up back in the packets. It's in his Expert's Portfolio No. 1.

the Impossible Traveler's manuscript also contains Racherbaumer's superb treatment of Mac aces: "Olram's Aces" (one of the best versions of said plot to see print...)Side note: In Rock's version the last Ace is a 'real' goner.

Instant Aces is the name of an effect Mike Skinner performs, without explanation, on Vol. 2 of "The" Legendary Repertoire" tapes. Although I have worked out a handling I would like to know, please, where it is in print, if it is. This is not Larry Jennings' Instant Aces. Mike does it after a more traditional Assembly routine and it is not a one-at-a-time assembly but all four at once.

The poker theme seems to satisfy the requirements you are seeking. There is a reason for the cards to transpose. Jack McMillen had a brilliant presentational approach to Marlo's Bluff Aces, one of the better assemblies out there. The best part of the presentation was the fact that the spectator did the "move" that caused the cards to be switched, and Jack acted surprised that he was being hustled by a spectator! He had a lot of funny "talk lines" as he referred to them, and the effect itself is a powerhouse, so...